Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemma 3 27B

Gemini 2.5 Pro leads Gemma 3 27B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 16.1 to 4.9, and Gemma 3 27B costs 33.3x less per output token ($0.30 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 60 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemini 2.5 Pro Replace Gemma 3 27B
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle
Coding
19.1
Overall
41.8
Output $/M
$10.00
60
Gemma 3 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
31.4
Output $/M
$0.30
0
vs boards won of 60 shared

Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 3 27B: which to pick

Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a coding score, 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 3 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 33.3x cheaper ($0.30 vs $10.00 per million).

Model AGemini 2.5 ProGoogle19.1/1003 independent benchmarks$0.64 per solved taskModel BGemma 3 27BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
60
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
30
Gemma 3 27B only
6
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 2.5 Pro 19.1 from 3 benchmarks, Gemma 3 27B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 48.1 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AA Math Index: Gemini 2.5 Pro 87.7 against Gemma 3 27B 20.7, 67.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Pro $10.00 against Gemma 3 27B $0.30 per million output tokens, 33.3x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Pro takes 1.05M tokens, Gemma 3 27B 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 2.5 ProBarsGemma 3 27BTies
Coding60
Intelligence20
Agentic work20
Reasoning90
Math50
Knowledge60
General300
All shared boards600
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index60
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured4.9%Only Gemma 3 27B measured
SWE-bench Verified53.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev1226Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
AA Coding Index33.310.1Gemini 2.5 Pro
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)54.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)0.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)80.1%13.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro
SciCode46.3%23.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%3.8%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Terminal-Bench32.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
GSO-Bench3.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
WeirdML54.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: coding14521322Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: software and IT14591354Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena WebDev: HTML1235Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1285Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
SciCodeNot measured0.0%Only Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index16.14.9Gemini 2.5 Pro
Epoch Capabilities Index145.1130.0Gemini 2.5 Pro
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
AA Agentic Index1.60.1Gemini 2.5 Pro
τ²-Bench Telecom54.1%10.5%Gemini 2.5 Pro
GDPval23.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
DeepResearch Bench41.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Vending-Bench 2$574Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured29.5%Only Gemma 3 27B measured
BrowseComp-Plus29.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)84.4%42.8%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)22.5%4.4%Gemini 2.5 Pro
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)85.3%47.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro
ARC-AGI41.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14551340Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: expert14521304Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14531353Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: diagrams12741156Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: homework12811160Gemini 2.5 Pro
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%35.1%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
AA Math Index87.720.7Gemini 2.5 Pro
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)87.7%20.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro
OTIS Mock AIME84.7%22.5%Gemini 2.5 Pro
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 324.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
FrontierMath, tier 40.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MATH level 5Not measured74.0%Only Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: math14501312Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: mathematical work14541327Gemini 2.5 Pro
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)63.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)60.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedCode (Vals AI)50.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)86.2%66.9%Gemini 2.5 Pro
GeoBenchNot measured52.0%Only Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: science14801383Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14761391Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: legal and government14801375Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: business and finance14391360Gemini 2.5 Pro
FACTS Benchmark Suite61.5%29.1%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
Design Arena: websites1167Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: UI components1137Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: game dev1111Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: data viz1222Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: 3D1080Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: all code categories1152Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index300
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)41.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
IFBench48.7%31.8%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.0%7.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro
DTBench82.4%52.5%Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMCA34.8%12.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured33.3%Only Gemma 3 27B measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)83.8%79.9%Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text14581358Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: instruction following14371321Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: creative writing14541345Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision12631165Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: English14581377Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: non-English14521334Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Chinese15071346Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: German14871362Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Japanese14611287Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Korean14341308Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: French14731368Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Spanish14741349Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Russian14611349Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Polish14791345Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: multi-turn14531345Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: longer queries14491333Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: writing and language14541347Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14411320Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: English12611188Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: Chinese13001164Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: reading text12701156Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: humor12621166Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: captioning13041151Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: recognizing things12831196Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: creative writing12651177Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Document1421Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemma 3 27BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.0063Fits in one request
Gemma 3 27B$0.0002Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.092Fits in one request
Gemma 3 27B$0.0049Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.350Fits in one request
Gemma 3 27B$0.019Exceeds the context window

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 3 27B
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle Gemma 3 27B
MakerGoogleGoogle
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJune 17, 2025March 12, 2025
Context window1.05M131K
Input $/Mtok$1.25$0.08
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.30
Coding index19.1Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.64Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Gemma 3 27B for coding?

Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a coding score, 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 3 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 33.3x cheaper ($0.30 vs $10.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 3 27B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Gemma 3 27B costs $0.08 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for Gemini 2.5 Pro only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 3 27B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemma 3 27B comparison based on?

60 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Pro's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Gemma 3 27B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next